A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant, at around 15:30 on December 14, 2017, and around 19:0 on December 26, 2017, at around 19:00 on December 26, 2017, is found to be under the influence of alcohol without any justifiable reason in front of the major question of the support for the military re-employment in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

There was a fact that soldiers who were serving in the sick and wounded in the sick and wounded were prevented from being removed.

On December 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) found drunk at the above location on December 16:15, 2017; (b) found the victim D(20 years) belonging to the military police branch of the police branch of the police police branch of the Jin-Gyeong National Police Unit C, who had been working as a sentry, “I am at another stop; and (c) decided that the victim would go to the military unit and move to the military unit, such as moving the bucker, which is the boundary of the military, and taking a bath.

As a result, the defendant assaulted the victim who is serving as a sentry for the safety of the naval police support team, thereby hindering his legitimate execution of official duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to E and D;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant’s perception of his mistake in depth and reflects it; (b) there are some circumstances to consider the motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant has no special criminal records other than that subjected to a fine twice; and (d) the Defendant is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, since the obstruction of the performance of official duties not only interferes with the function of the state's legal order by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority, but also is related to the excessive restriction of the safety of the general public, it is necessary to punish the equivalent severe punishment, and the defendant is also found to have violated the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

The fact that it was difficult to avoid disturbance is the content.